Everyone Is Responsible for Safety: The Myth and Solution

In many organizations, the thinking behind the "everyone is responsible
for safety" idea is to create an employee mindset to proactively engage in
the creation of a safe work environment for everyone. The basis for this
thinking is that if everyone is actively engaged, then the risk of injury
should be minimized due to the concerted grass-roots effort.

Not only will all the employees benefit from this approach through fewer
accidents, but they should experience satisfaction in witnessing the positive
result of their engagement, which created a safer work environment. This should
also lead to improved morale.

I was speaking to a group of about 250 people in a seminar at a safety
conference. To make a point, someone mentioned that "in reality,"
everyone was responsible for safety. When I asked the group exactly how this
could be managed effectively, no one had a good answer. Though this may sound
good in theory, in practice, it is not effective because holding a group
accountable is not practical and, therefore, unmanageable in practice. There
are also other reasons that make this particular approach to affecting safety
performance ineffective.

Trouble Assessing the Situation

The first step in an individual’s decision to intervene is the recognition
that another individual requires assistance. To take action, the bystander has
to realize that the other person is not aware of the hazard and may possibly
get injured unless given a warning. Some of the practical reasons why
individuals hesitate in taking action in regard to safety may be involved with
the assessment of the situation.

What one individual may consider as being unsafe, another may feel is
perfectly safe. So the observer may assume that the situation is safe enough
when, in fact, it is not. But because of this assessment, this person may not
do anything about it.

The observer may think that the situation and associated exposure pose
minimal risk and that it does not warrant intervention, as the other person
is experienced and should be able to handle it.

Even if the observer deems that the other person is in a situation that
may be potentially hazardous, the observer may assume that the person is
aware of the hazard and will take it into account in his or her performance
of the task.

If there are others in the area, then the observer may assume that one of
the other persons present has already alerted or will alert the exposed
employee and, as a result, do nothing. (See my article,
Stop Work Authority and the Bystander Effect, from July 2015.)

In the case of a supervisor who is faced with a critical goal and the
need to "get the job done," the supervisor may not say anything
about a hazard, as the task may take minimal time (meaning the exposure is
limited), and the worker engaged in the activity is experienced. Given those
factors, the supervisor decides that no intervention will be
forthcoming.

If the observer works for a different subcontractor, that person may feel
that he or she does not have the authority or the expertise to say something
about the situation he or she assumes is unsafe.

The observer may feel less experienced than the person performing the
task and, therefore, not voice concern over the potential hazard.

The observer may feel reluctant to voice concern for fear that others may
ridicule that concern. This is especially applicable to people who do not
have an affinity for affiliation.

The observer may be busy and feel that others who have time will
intervene and, as a result, feel justified in not doing anything about the
situation.

The Presence of Others

There may be many underlying reasons why one worker may not take any action
on a construction site once aware of a situation that may potentially injure
those working in or around possible hazards. This may also be explained by a
number of sociopsychological concepts. More importantly, it actually may create
a situation where many people will do little or even nothing to further the
cause of safety. A number of social psychological experiments have demonstrated
that individuals may fail to assist others in situations where they become
aware of potential hazards not due to indifference but, rather, due to the
presence of other people in the area. This is explained by the "diffusion
of responsibility" theory and the principle of social proof.

Per Wikipedia, "[d]iffusion of responsibility is a sociopsychological phenomenon whereby a person is less
likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when others are
present" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility). Each
individual may assume that since everyone is responsible, there has to be a
number of other people who can take action. Therefore, there is little pressure
to take action. The end result may actually be that everyone is going to make
that very same assumption, and no one will actually do anything to further the
cause of safety.

Another reason for inaction involves the principle of social proof. This
principle states that we determine what is correct by finding out what other
people think is correct.1 In situations where we
are not sure what the correct action or behavior ought to be, we look to see
what others are doing. As a rule, people make fewer mistakes if they act in
accordance with social evidence than not. Usually, when a larger number of
people are doing the same thing, it is the right thing to do. In a way, when
there is doubt about what a person should do, it becomes a shortcut to deciding
what to do. When the other people in the area fail to react, individuals often
take this as a signal that any form of action or response is not required.

This sort of thinking may even lead to the conclusion that taking any action
is not appropriate. Other researchers have found that onlookers will tend to be
less likely to intervene if the situation is perceived to be unclear, open to
interpretation, or enigmatic. Per Wikipedia, "[t]his phenomenon tends to
occur in groups above a certain critical size and when responsibility is not
explicitly assigned. It rarely occurs when the person is alone. Diffusion
increases with groups of three or more" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility).

Tragedy of the Commons

Another possible mechanism that may drive the derailment of thinking that
everyone is responsible for safety may be the "tragedy of the
commons" idea. According to Wikipedia, the term, popularized by Garrett
Hardin, represents situations where individuals driven by self-interest
"behave contrary to the best interests of the whole" group. This
concept was based on the effect of unregulated grazing on "common
land"—a practice in medieval England. The land (pasture) was owned by the
manor, and commoners grazed their herds on it and paid the manor for the
privilege. A commoner’s primary focus was feeding his or her herd with no
concern for other commoners or the sustainability of the grazing. This practice
was also used in relationship to common lands and village greens in the
American colonies, where the village owned the land, and individual villagers
had the right to graze their animals there (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons).

We can see the "tragedy of the commons" concept at play concerning
sustainability issues today in situations such as global warming, pollution of
the atmosphere, ocean fisheries, sustainable development meshing with economic
growth, environmental protection versus industry practices, etc. The
"tragedy of the commons" idea may play a role in occupational
situations where individuals have to achieve some form of production to meet
operational goals and do not see any benefit to investing time and effort to
ensure that others are working safely.

The Management Dilemma

If the organization is truly interested in creating a safe work environment,
then making an ineffective statement such as "everyone is responsible for
safety" is not useful nor is it effective. Such a statement without a
framework enabling everyone to actually engage in the process represents
wishful thinking. It is understood that workers work because they need to, and
so they are going to do what they have to do to keep their jobs. Whatever the
organization’s management states as being important, or whatever workers
understand or perceive as being important, is going to affect the workers’
attitudes and drive their behavior at work. If workers are put in a position
where they have to choose between conflicting expectations, they will choose
the one that ensures their success in remaining employed.

If the organization has a culture that values or emphasizes production, then
production is going to be the primary focus of the workforce. Supervisors are
going to "push" for production. And, if there is anything (like
safety) that may be perceived as detrimental to achieving that production goal,
it may very well be ignored, with resulting adverse outcomes. What typically
happens is organizations add a safety requirement to the performance mix
without addressing the underlying drivers associated with the production
requirements. Depending on how much pressure management applies to improve
safety, outcomes will elicit a set of different reactions from the workforce.
If the pressure for improvement in safety is weak, the workers are going to
assume that management is not really committed to the new initiative and will
eventually go on to some other one. This will result in cynicism on the
workers’ part, so they might ignore the new safety initiative. If the pressure
persists, they may pay lip services to it.

This approach of work, as usual, at the worksite will result in little if
any improvement in safety outcomes. Therefore, management’s instinctual
reaction to this is going to be ratcheting up the pressure on safety. Greater
pressure on safety and no change in production expectations is going to create
some internal conflict for the workers. They can no longer ignore this, so they
will shift from passive indifference to some form of resistance. This could
take the shape of subversion, subterfuge, cover up, etc. To avoid conforming,
they may try to game the reporting or do the "right" things during
site inspections and not at other times.

With some improvement in safety results, though not quite enough,
management, in all likelihood, will exert even greater pressure to get the
workforce to comply to show greater improvement in safety metrics. This causes
the resistance to go "underground," and it manifests itself in more
counterproductive ways. The safety initiative will be sabotaged. Workers will
go out of their way to show how the safety initiative impacts production
negatively. They will maliciously follow every safety rule or step while
engaged in performing their task to show how they are hampered from being
productive.

To create a culture where everyone (including management as well as the
workers) values safety and actively participates in the process requires an
integrated cross-functional approach. Management must map the workings of the
organizational and operational systems and determine where the barriers to
creating a safe work environment exist. This will entail a diligent and
exhaustive review of policies, procedures, processes, and practices. After the
underlying barriers are identified and removed, the remedy starts with
reiterating the organizational values; articulating a compelling vision;
devising a comprehensive winning strategy; and setting clear objectives,
meaningful measures, and targets.

Before attempting a major change initiative, it might be wise to find the
less disruptive avenues that may lead to performance improvement. These
initiatives will make some changes to existing processes that are already in
use. Successful implementation should be relatively easy, and this will also
get the organization used to change initiatives. If the implementation goes
well, people will be less likely to be concerned or resist later changes. There
are many areas in operations where small changes will result in substantial
improvement of safety outcomes. Some "low-hanging fruit"
opportunities that should be easy to accomplish can be found in the fundamental
elements of management, which are planning, organizing, directing, staffing,
and controlling.

Integrated planning. Planning is a fundamental pillar
of construction operations. Just about everything in construction has to be
planned. Successful construction companies have management and field
personnel who generally are effective planners. It is through planning that
the appropriate materials are secured, delivered, and installed. It is
through effective planning that all trades work harmoniously on the work
site. Planning is an ongoing process that starts before construction and is
carried out during the execution of work to ensure successful completion of
the project.

The process has to be modified to make managing the risk of injury a
cornerstone of the process. With effective integrated planning, the project
staff can ensure that all the necessary elements required to build the
project successfully are combined with the identified potential risks of
injuries so as to achieve both production and safety goals. This effort
will ensure safe and effective project delivery by minimizing disruption,
increasing efficiency, and lowering costs.

The fact that an incident involving some element of safety on the
construction site causes disruptions, inefficiency, and loss begs the
question, why don’t construction companies address potential hazards and
exposures to their workers as an integral part of their planning process?
This highlights the need to incorporate safety into the fundamental
functions of management. For this process to be effective, safety ought to
be addressed before the project is bid and continue all the way through
turnover.

Organizing. Management organizes how the company will
function by creating a structure-devising system (policies and procedures)
and a hierarchical structure of management functions to successfully
achieve its goals and objectives. Management defines responsibilities and
accountability to ensure the work is performed as planned. Managers provide
the appropriate technology, facilitate communication, and ensure the flow
of information and that given directions are clear and specific.

Good organizational design helps communications, productivity, and
innovation. It creates an environment where people can work effectively
together. It means looking at the complex relationship between tasks,
workflow, responsibility, and authority while making sure these all support
the objectives of the business. How people interact and are incentivized
directly affects how well the organization performs.

Organizing the work, worksite, subcontractors, and staff is critical to
effectiveness and efficiency. To be efficient, safety must be integrated
into the organizational systems and processes. Prioritizing is required and
determined by importance or urgency. It really takes a team of talented
people applying their combined skills with a unity of purpose to more
effectively manage work, solve problems, make decisions, and organize in
ways that truly let them shine.

Directing. The various members of the supply chain, as
well as workers on site, will need direction over the course of the
project. Managers tell people what to do, how to do it, and when to have it
completed. They assign roles and responsibilities, set standards, and
define expectations while holding people accountable. Safety must be an
integral part of directing the workforce. The need for direction is a
function of the knowledge and experience of people involved. Appropriate
selection will limit the amount of needed direction, which frees up
management to do other important things.

Decision making is an important function of management. Assigning
capable staff to the field and hiring competent subcontractors creates a
potential for teamwork. For employees to function well, there needs to be
effective communication. The project manager should empower each person to
make decisions that apply to his or her own groups and roles. This
empowerment must be commensurate with each individual's level of
experience and motivation. This speeds up problem solving as well as
decision making.

Staffing. People are a key element of performance.
Selecting the "right" people for the "right" tasks and
making sure they are doing the "right" things at the
"right" time is fundamental to achieving excellence in operation.
This is a key factor in addressing the safety performance of the workforce
and management’s active support and involvement. Managers routinely need to
delegate tasks to others to meet project needs, so involving competent and
experienced workers makes the project delivery process more effective.

If you have formed a "smart" team and they clearly understand
the vision of safe and efficient production, they should be empowered to
make decisions that apply to their particular circumstance. In addition to
speeding up problem solving and decision making, it will foster synergy as
well as instill a sense of ownership throughout the entire team. Per
Wikipedia, synergy is the ability of a group to outperform even its best
individual member (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy).

Controlling. Management control systems are tools used
to direct the organization toward its strategic objectives. Control is an
important function for ensuring that the organization, operations, or
projects are on target to meet all the critical goals and specific
deadlines. Control is an integrated technique for collecting and using
information to motivate and direct employee behavior and to evaluate
performance. Safety must be integrated into the overall management control
system.

Though not a complete list, these areas should help achieve some improvement
with relatively limited effort and disruption to existing operational
practices. In the present competitive business environment, organizations must
encourage their employees to willingly and enthusiastically give their best
efforts. This will only be accomplished if the employees trust the
organization’s leadership, feel that they are treated fairly, and believe that
they are valued. This fosters job satisfaction that leads to participation and
involvement.

Conclusion

So, for the statement "everyone is responsible for safety" to
become a reality in the sense that everyone actively is involved and striving
to create a safe work environment, management has to enable them to do so. This
comes about through careful thought and action. It requires planning,
organizing, directing, staffing, controlling, and motivating. The
organizational systems must be aligned, processes must be integrated, and the
work climate must encourage open communication for workers to feel that they
are treated fairly. Management must become leaders who value and motivate their
workforce. Management’s actions and behaviors are a strong indication of their
position on what is expected of their employees and how they feel about them.
This is going to create—as well as sustain—a work climate that not only
indicates, but also reinforces, that safe production garners recognition and
results in job security.

Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.

Like This Article?

IRMI Update

Dive into thought-provoking industry commentary every other week,
including links to free articles from industry experts. Discover practical
risk management tips, insight on important case law and be the first to
receive important news regarding IRMI products and events.